ORDER :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred claiming for the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction,

i) The impugned order dated 9.7.2015 (annex.5) passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Bikaner in Civil Original Suit No.51/2009 may be quashed and set aside with all its natural consequences;

ii) Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the learned Court may very kindly be directed to take on record documents sought to be produced by the petitioners (Annex.4);

iii) Any order which may be passed during the pendency of writ petition, adversely affecting the rights and interest of the petitioner may also be quashed and set aside; and

iv) Costs may be awarded to the petitioner;"

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner are that the plaintiff-petitioners filed a suit against the defendant-respondents for declaration and permanent injunction; stating therein that the plaintiff-petitioners are the legal heirs of Dhapi Devi w/o Farsaram. That Dhapi Devi had 3 sons; Sharvan Kumar, Ramesh Kumar and Rajkumar. That Ramesh Kumar and Rajkumar passed away issueless. However, that Ramesh Kumar during his lifetime had adopted the plaintiff no.2, and who had conducted the funeral rites and rituals of Ramesh Kumar. That on 23.09.2008, the defendant-respondent no.2 stating to be the adopted son of Ramesh Kumar arrived at the residence of Ramesh Kumar and asked the plaintiff to vacate such premises claiming the adoption of plaintiff no.2 was in accordance with the law, more particularly the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that prior to the evidence of the defendant-respondents, the plaintiff-petitioners filed an application under Order 7, Rule 14 CPC for taking two documents on the record, namely medical certificate dated 19.12.2008 issued by the 'Rog Nivaran Hospital' and the copy of the revenue-suit filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khajuwala (Annex.-4).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 09.07.2015 erred in rejecting the aforementioned application preferred by the plaintiff-petitioners with the observation that the documents sought to be taken on the record were an attempt of the plaintiffs to delay the proceedings of the suit. And that, the finding that the medical certificate in question is post-dated is without merit, as the certificate clearly speaks of the consultation by Ramesh Kumar which was done on 08.02.2007, prior to presentation of the suit on 31.10.2008.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that it was specifically pleaded before the learned Court below that the documents in question were found at the time of renovation of the house of late Ramesh Kumar in the month of May 2015, and that bringing such documents on the record would in no way prejudice the rights of the defendant-respondents but in fact assist the learned Court below in deciding the suit as they speak to the mental condition of the deceased Ramesh Kumar.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order dated 09.07.2015 rejecting the application preferred by the plaintiff-petitioners with the finding that the same was a delay tactic and not quintessential to the adjudication of the suit.

7. Heard. Perused the record of the case.

8. This Court observes that the do